It is possible that some of you may remember my interaction with R2K-phile Dr. Brian Lee from last November. Dr. Brian Lee, you will recall, informed us that he has a legit Ph.D and is a Reverend Doctor. Further he has read books (most of them in Latin) and he has had his dissertation published with Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, which is a legit German academic house. Anyway … Dr. Lee said in our interactions back then,
“The Good News of Jesus Christ is the sole focus of our Gospel ministry, because we have neither the authority nor the expertise to weigh in on civil matters…. Do forget the OT, please. Seriously. You must understand that Romans 12 – 13 and the rest of the NT is a radical departure from OT Israel. Israel’s mandate was to make the land of Canaan (and other nations by extension) submit to its rule and reign. The NT Church is to submit to the reign of the nations. These two mandates are not only different, they are opposite. The prophets were calling the kings to account because it was in their portfolio, it was a theocracy, and the “King” was a type of Christ. NT prophets are preachers, and Caesar is not in their portfolio. Only sin in and among God’s people.”
Rev. Dr. Brian Lee, on R2k submission to Ceasar, Nov. 2014
But now it seems that Dr. Lee is whistling a new tune. Just yesterday he was caught giving advice on the whole SCOTUS Sodomy affair.
“I encourage folks to read this roundup (Lee provides a link) of what the dissenting justices believe are the religious liberty implications of Friday’s SCOTUS decision on SSM (Same Sex Marriage). These aren’t partisan hacks raising baseless alarm bells. These are constitutional scholars pointing out the disastrous side-effects of having engineered this cultural transformation through the courts. A legislative enactment of SSM would have been far more orderly, peaceful, and constructive to our constitutional form of government.
The failure of Kennedy’s majority opinion to articulate or guarantee free exercise of religion for opponents of this decision is astounding, and gravely troubling. It’s not accidental.”
My question to the good Latin reading Doctor is based upon his words in November. Based on his words in November why should he or any member of the clergy care what SCOTUS does? All of what Lee published on this subject has taught us is that none of us have the authority nor the expertise to weigh in on civil matters. Yet here he is weighing in on civil matters. Perhaps what the man with the legit Ph.D meant is that none of us, except the star of Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, have the authority or expertise to weigh in on civil matters?
Is R2K really just a ruse to get everyone else in the Church to shut up about these civil matters so that the benighted R2K geniuses of the world have a clear field in order to instruct the cattle? Or is it just the case, as I’ve argued before, that R2K is a miasma of contradiction and inconsistency that only someone with pretzel logic can understand?
Dr. Brian Lee (Nov. 2014) — “NT prophets are preachers, and Caesar is not in their portfolio. Only sin in and among God’s people.”
Dr. Brian Lee (June 2015) — “A legislative enactment of SSM would have been far more orderly, peaceful, and constructive to our constitutional form of government. “
Has Dr. Brian Lee had a “Road to Damascus” conversion or, as I think it more likely the case, is he merely demonstrating the bi-polar tendency in all R2K “thinking?”
Now as to his actual words themselves, as typed in bold print, one wonders if Dr. Brian Lee is against SSM as a principle, or is he just against SSM as it is implemented by judicial fiat?
R2K — A “theology” that keeps you guessing.
How can Dr. Brian Lee qualify the opinions of “constitutional scholars” in his own a public statement, having clearly exposed his “portfolio? Bewildering. Are any of these “constitutional scholars” he appears to be hiding behind believers?
Cuke,
I have found that insanity is just around the corner when I see to make sense of their insanity.
1. Nothing in NL2K (at least that I know of) would prohibit a minister from speaking to these issues, except from the pulpit. Brian would probably say that he wrote/said these things as a private citizen, rather than as a pastor. (Personally, I think pastors speak as pastors, and are perceived as doing so by most people, regardless of the forum involved (i.e. pulpit or social media). Certainly the proponents of SSM will not be likely to cut him any slack for his views, even if he is mum on the subject when behind the pulpit.
2. Be very glad that Brian (and *many* others who hold to NL2K) at the very least are more than willing to make statements on social issues like this via blogs, social media, etc. And many members of their congregations no doubt read what they are writing there, and can be made aware of the biblical issues involved, be equipped to deal with them, etc. That is a good thing.
3. I saw the post that he made (that you reference above), and was disheartened by the part that you put in bold type. That is less than I would hope to hear from a pastor on the subject. Even if he is just trying to make a constitutional point (which *is* certainly valid enough), my main concern with the ruling goes far beyond the Supreme Court’s circumvention of the legislation process and their dereliction of duty regarding the court’s intended role as a check & balance. (I have no doubt that Brian shares my concerns on this topic.)
On the whole, I was happy to see Brian say what he did.
1.) I knew he would say that. I don’t think it holds water. He may think that he can put on different hats so that at times he speaks as a “minister” and other times he speaks as a “laymen” but in a non hyphenated world that dog won’t hunt. Besides, if we are going to be technical on this point Brian and all R2K’ers when speaking on these issues should preface their natural law convictions with, “Now, speaking only as a laymen…”
2.) It’s a good think that their Pastor will deny that God’s law has anything to do with these matters but instead we must decide and debate using Natural law? So it’s a good thing that they are teaching their people, when they speak out, that they must not stand on God’s Word but on a abstract ephemeral thing like “natural law”?
3. At best the bold part perhaps hints that Brian thinks that some states should be allowed to have sodomite marriages as long as those state legislatures codify it into law. I hope that is not the case.
4.) You say it is “less than I would hope to hear from a Pastor on the subject,” And yet earlier you said he was not speaking as a Pastor. Why the disappointment?
5.) On the whole Brian is a walking contradiction.
6.) NL2K is just a way to try to be friendly with those who are heterodox as seen in their R2K.
I do not hold to NL2K myself; not a fan at all.
Just pointing out that for all of the rhetoric that some adherents may use about how the church as church is supposed to be silent on cultural & political issues, they often (thankfully) are not silent, and they also often do not limit themselves to natural law.
Which is just to say, as I said, they are rife with contradictions.
1. This is a dualistic message to the flock. It teaches them that the minister is an unqualified agnostic about civil matters (including abortion and gay marriage) on Sunday, but when he leaves the pulpit he is qualified to weigh in from an internet pulpit.
2. With the R2k vagaries of natural law vis a vis scripture, it would be much more helpful if they just stayed consistent with their first principles of unqualified agnosticism.
Then let Reformed ministers, theologians, and ethicists do the work for which they are both authorized and qualified without interference from the R2k sidelines.
My basic point is that (thankfully) at times often their better pastoral instincts overtake their NL2K limitations.
This particular one left much to be desired in this case, but that is not always the case.
Lord willing, maybe the current controversy may finally shake some loose from their NL2K moorings.
Their better Pastoral instincts?
Yet, when they speak according to what you deem their “better pastoral instincts,” they are at that very moment insisting that they are not speaking as Pastors.
This Dr. Lee would have Christians go along & get along with Mao, Stalin, and Lenin.